|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Kate Hoey: Junior cricket is eligible for funding from Sportsmatch, the Government's sports sponsorship incentive scheme. Since its inception in 1992, Sportsmatch has made 336 awards worth a total of over £2.08 million to grass roots and junior cricket applications in England, attracting a similar amount in commercial sponsorship.
Funding is also available to cricket through the Lottery Sports fund which has made 523 awards to cricket projects, worth a total of over £60 million, towards total project costs of over £106 million. One of the priorities of the Lottery Sports Fund is that projects should attempt to target young people.
Cricket is a sport selected by Sport England for a five year sports development programme aimed at young people. The programme is England-wide, delivered at local level and involves local clubs, local authorities, education services, schools and the England and Wales Cricket Board (EWCB) all working in partnership.
Kate Hoey: Junior tennis is eligible for funding from Sportsmatch, the Government's sports sponsorship incentive scheme. Since its inception in 1992 Sportsmatch has made 194 awards worth a total of over £1.15 million to grass roots and junior tennis applications in England, attracting a similar amount in commercial sponsorship.
7 Jul 2000 : Column: 328W
Funding is also available to tennis through the Lottery Sports fund which has made 473 awards to tennis projects, worth a total of over £54 million, towards total project costs of over £92 million. One of the priorities of the Lottery Sports fund is that projects should attempt to target young people.
Tennis is also one of the nine sports selected by Sport England for a five-year sports development programme aimed at young people. The programme is England-wide, delivered at local level and involves local clubs, local authorities, education services, schools and the Lawn Tennis Association (LTA) working in partnership.
Mr. Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps are taken to publicise the widening of eligibility for admission to Edward VII convalescent home at Osborne to include non- commissioned ranks of the armed services under the Osborne Estate Order 1998. 
Mr. Alan Howarth: No steps are currently being taken to publicise the widening of eligibility for admission because the convalescent home is due to close on 31 October 2000. Following the granting of the Osborne Estate Order 1998, the Civil Service Benevolent Fund, who have been managing the convalescent home on behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, advertised the widening of eligibility to use the facilities at the home in a variety of publications. Additionally, they brought it to the attention of the Chief Welfare Officers of the armed forces and a number of Government Departments.
Mr. Blunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many of the convalescents at Edward VII convalescent home at Osborne were from (a) commissioned and (b) other ranks of the armed services in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. 
7 Jul 2000 : Column: 329W
|Barking and Havering||565.45||562.37||647.90|
|Bexley and Greenwich||579.39||622.77||671.51|
|Brent and Harrow||608.69||641.56||703.11|
|Camden and Islington||673.66||647.73||791.10|
|Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow||615.88||626.99||678.25|
|East London and the City||614.61||611.16||658.96|
|Enfield and Haringey||561.91||584.89||626.57|
|Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster||697.38||670.40||752.56|
|Kingston and Richmond||644.27||677.07||748.79|
|Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham||593.35||611.17||650.40|
|Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth||612.03||635.97||691.65|
|Redbridge and Waltham Forest||584.88||621.48||684.47|
1. Expenditure is taken from HA Annual Accounts which are prepared on a resource basis and therefore differ from cash allocations in each year. (These are not the total amounts spent on healthcare. General Dental Services expenditure is separately accounted for and cannot be analysed by health authority over the three years). Also, since 1997-98 drugs expenditure has been mainly accounted for by the Prescription Pricing Authority. For consistency, figures have been reduced by the amount of non-cash limited prescribing expenditure accounted for by the health authority in each year.
2. However, there are a number of other reasons why the figures shown cannot be directly compared between years and between health authorities. These will include:
(a) Non medical education and training expenditure (NMET); some authorities account for NMET on behalf of local consortia, and those HAs will have different levels of NMET funding over different years;
(b) The levels of non-recurrent allocations (such as strategic assistance) will have varied between years and authorities;
(c) The differential impact of cash limited prescribing, eg as a result of differential levels of general practitioner fundholding;
(d) Services (eg HIV/AIDS) that are accounted for on a district of treatment basis will distort the expenditure per capita figures which are based on resident populations;
(e) Changes in accounting policy over the years;
(f) There could also be different interpretations by auditors which may affect direct comparison; and
(g) Changes in the weighted population figures between years.
3. The expenditure per weighted head figures in the answer do not therefore reflect real changes in the resources available for spend on healthcare locally over the period or provide robust comparisons between HAs.
The accounts of health authorities in London for 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99.
Weighted population estimates for 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99.
7 Jul 2000 : Column: 330W
tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April have not received substantive answers, excluding those not answered (a) citing disproportionate cost, (b) stating that the information is not available, not held centrally, or not held in the form requested and (c) citing commercial or other confidentiality. 
Mr. Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the mortality rate for patients suffering from Guillain-Barre Syndrome admitted to National Health Service hospitals for treatment in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000; 
(3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of data collection in relation to the number of patients suffering from Guillain-Barre Syndrome who have been treated in National Health Service hospitals. 
Mr. Denham: The table shows a mortality rate for patients with a primary diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome in National Health Service hospitals in England for the financial years 1996-97 to 1998-99. Data for 1999-2000 are not yet available. Information on admissions to intensive care units is not available.
|Proportion of deaths/diagnoses (per cent.)||1.9||2.2||1.9|
The figures for 1998-99 and 1997-98 are provisional, no adjustment have as yet been made for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed) but for 1996-97 figures are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.
Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health
Mr. Andrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to encourage clinical governance subcommittees of National Health Service trusts to raise awareness of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; 
Mr. Denham: Clinical governance sub-committees have been put in place to co-ordinate National Health Service organisations' clinical governance activity. They are accountable for ensuring that clinical services across
7 Jul 2000 : Column: 331W
the whole organisation are effectively managed and that the quality of all clinical services improves. There are no plans at this stage to encourage committees to focus on any particular condition.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|